How Much Could You
Afford?PRICE OF SEEKING JUSTICE JUST
KEEPS ON GOING UP AND UPBy STEVE WILSON

TAMPA
(July 14, 2000)—After struggling for more than two years just to
get their case into a public courtroom, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson
learned again yesterday that the pursuit of justice is not cheap. After
unexpectedly moving the Fox/BGH trial out of Judge Ralph
Steinberg’s usual courtroom into a newly-remodeled, high-tech
courtroom across the street, the plaintiffs were told late Friday
they’d have to cough up more than $2,775 a day if they wanted to
actually use all the audio-video equipment that is built into
the new facility.JURY
HAS BEEN SEATED -- CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS
Opening statements are
set to begin at 8:30 Monday morning and the trial is expected to
last up to four weeks.Even
if the plaintiffs took advantage of the court’s bargain “weekly
rate,” the bill could run over $30,000.
Fox requested the special
courtroom and acting chief Judge Robert Bonnano ordered the move
behind the scenes without the consent of the plaintiffs and without
any disclosure of the potential cost to them.Judge Steinberg himself seemed surprised when he announced the
move from the bench last Wednesday, telling the parties,
“They’ve got a fancy new courtroom over there across the street
and I guess they want to use it.”
When court officials
stood firm and demanded payment arrangements on the eve of his
opening to the jury, co-plaintiff Wilson told them he could not
afford to pay and would just have to bring in other equipment to
help present the plaintiffs’ case to the jury.A high-ranking
court administrator then explained they would block the plaintiffs
from using other equipment unless they went to the time, trouble,
and expense of tearing up the courtroom sub-floor to run all cords
and wires underneath.
The court administrators
say they want to avoid laying wires on the courtroom floor.They contend it would be a tripping hazard.For many years and even today, cables to operate audio-video
equipment are routinely laid and safely taped to the floors of every
other courtroom in the building.“We want to get away from that,” an administrator
explained.And how does a
government facility built with public tax dollars get away with
charging added fees for its use?
Here’s the official
explanation: Although the courtroom itself is a public facility and
free to use, the built-in audio-visual equipment was not purchased
with tax dollars.The
court entered into a contract with a private company, Xerox, to
provide, install, and maintain the equipment and to charge everybody
who wants to use it.

Going To Court in Tampa?Don't Leave Home Without One Of These!

"Taxpayers don’t like to pay for court facilities when many
of them don’t ever use the courts,” the administrator explained
to Wilson when he questioned the arrangement.
"And people without
children don’t like to pay for public schools, either, but
isn’t that another price we all pay for living in a civilized,
democratic society?” Wilson responded.The court official
explained the entire matter will have to be taken up with the judge
at 8:30 Monday when the parties and the jury arrive.“This case will just not be able to go forward at 8:30
a.m.” she announced.
Presumably, Judge
Steinberg could order the trial back into his usual courtroom and go
back to doing it “the old fashioned way.”If he goes along with new rules that court administrators are
pushing to enforce for the first time in this case, it could take
several hours to string cables beneath the courtroom floor.Of greater concern to the plaintiffs is that their
presentation to the jury would be significantly less polished than
the defendant’s who can easily afford full access to the
expensive, state-of-the art equipment that is built in.
"How much justice
can you afford?That seems to be the issue here,” said co-plaintiff Jane
Akre. Wilson has
represented himself throughout most of the case to save money.The defendants objected—and lost—when they tried to stop
him from videotaping depositions with a home video camera to save the
cost of hiring professional video companies Fox sometimes employed.
“And while we’ve
struggled to keep our attorneys paid, and to buy as many deposition
transcripts as we could afford, and to pay all the other pre-trial
expenses, we never dreamed or budgeted thousands of dollars for the
privilege of using the facilities in the public courthouse,” Akre
added.
The first hint of any
extra expense came near the end of the first day of the proceedings
as the litigants were selecting the jury.
A court official handed
envelopes to Akre attorney Tom Johnson and to Wilson.During a brief break, Wilson opened his envelope to see the
letterhead of Court Business Center and the official seal of the
state court.“It is our
understanding that you will be participating in an upcoming trial in
the 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Tampa, FL,” it said.“The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the
resources and capabilities available on-site for your usage.“
Below is a list of the
equipment available, along with the weekly rental rates at our Court
Business Center…located in the main courthouse on the second floor
in Room 274,” it went on.Below
it was a menu of rates for items such as video monitors, cassette
players, and document projectors.
Wilson figured he
wouldn’t need—and certainly couldn’t afford—any of that
equipment in the Court Business Center on the floor below.He thought he and the attorneys representing the co-plaintiff
would just use what was built into the new courtroom.He put the letter away. It was late Friday when
Wilson went to the courtroom to check out the equipment he and
Akre’s attorneys intended to use.Two officials approached and asked, “How do you like our
facility?”Wilson’s
response: “very nice.”But
then they lowered the boom, asking, “And how do you plan to
arrange payment?”
Shocked, Wilson asked why
he was never clearly told about the charges.“Well, you never asked,” a court worker responded.
“You know,” Wilson
says, “if it wasn’t so sad and outrageous, it would almost be
funny.”